The US Patent and Trademark Office recently granted a patent for my work on interactivity software here at Harbinger Knowledge Products- our second patent among several filings. That triggered a thought process about this whole idea of patenting.
What purpose does a patent serve? The system of patents creates incentives for innovation. The innovation process is inherently risky - one could use the time, effort, money and other resources to do something else, rather than go invent a mousetrap. Patents provide enough protection so that investors have an incentive to put up the money, and inventors are willing to put in the time to develop new technology.
Josh Lerner and Adam Jaffe provide an interesting counterpoint. They argue that patents are blunt instruments. Because of the complexity of the evolution of technology, the monopoly that they create will sometimes retard rather than encourage competition.
Take the example of Edison's light bulb. Edison was granted the basic patent on incandescent lighting in 1880. In the subsequent years, Edison General Electric Company practically throttled all their competitors' efforts at improving their design by bringing infringement suits, which they won. It took until the expiration of Edison's patent for other improvements to kick in. Soon after that, bulbs got better and cheaper.
In effect then, the patent system essentially slowed the pace of innovation in a bid to protect Edison.
So it is hard to get it right, say Lerner and Jaffe. In the best of worlds, a patent system is a compromise among competing objectives.
I hope to catch Lerner (those who have seen him run about in class will know what I mean) again next spring before deciding where to stand on this issue. His book is titled Innovation and Its Discontents: How Our Broken Patent System is Endangering Innovation and Progress, published by Princeton University Press.
What purpose does a patent serve? The system of patents creates incentives for innovation. The innovation process is inherently risky - one could use the time, effort, money and other resources to do something else, rather than go invent a mousetrap. Patents provide enough protection so that investors have an incentive to put up the money, and inventors are willing to put in the time to develop new technology.
Josh Lerner and Adam Jaffe provide an interesting counterpoint. They argue that patents are blunt instruments. Because of the complexity of the evolution of technology, the monopoly that they create will sometimes retard rather than encourage competition.
Take the example of Edison's light bulb. Edison was granted the basic patent on incandescent lighting in 1880. In the subsequent years, Edison General Electric Company practically throttled all their competitors' efforts at improving their design by bringing infringement suits, which they won. It took until the expiration of Edison's patent for other improvements to kick in. Soon after that, bulbs got better and cheaper.
In effect then, the patent system essentially slowed the pace of innovation in a bid to protect Edison.
So it is hard to get it right, say Lerner and Jaffe. In the best of worlds, a patent system is a compromise among competing objectives.
I hope to catch Lerner (those who have seen him run about in class will know what I mean) again next spring before deciding where to stand on this issue. His book is titled Innovation and Its Discontents: How Our Broken Patent System is Endangering Innovation and Progress, published by Princeton University Press.
No comments:
Post a Comment